Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2205.01333

Engineering Annotations: A Generic Framework For Gluing Design Artefacts in Models of Interactive Systems

Abstract

Along the design process of interactive system many intermediate artefacts (such as user interface prototypes, task models describing user work and activities, dialog models specifying system behavior, interaction models describing user interactions {\ldots}) are created, tested, revised and improved until the development team produces a validated version of the full-fledged system. Indeed, to build interactive systems there is a need to use multiple artefacts/models (as they provide a complementary view). However, relevant information for describing the design solution and/or supporting design decisions (such as rational about the design, decisions made, recommendations, etc.) is not explicitly capturable in the models/artefacts, hence the need for annotations. Multi-artefacts approaches usually argue that a given information should only be present in one artefact to avoid duplication and increase maintainability of the artefacts. Nonetheless, annotations created on one artefact are usually relevant to other artefacts/models. So that, there is a need for tools and techniques to coordinate annotations across artefacts/models which is the contribution of the present work. In this paper, we propose a model-based approach that was conceived to handle annotations in a systematic way along the development process of interactive systems. As part of the solution, we propose an annotation model built upon the W3C's Web Annotation Data Model. The feasibility of the approach is demonstrated by means of a tool suite featuring a plugin, which has been deployed and tested over the multi-artefacts. The overall approach is illustrated on the design of an interactive cockpit application performing two design iterations. The contribution brings two main benefits for interactive systems engineering: i) it presents a generic pattern for integrating information in multiple usually heterogenous artefacts throughout the design process of interactive systems; and ii) it highlights the need for tools helping to rationalize and to document the various artefacts and the related decisions made during interactive systems design. CCS CONCEPTS $\bullet$ Human-centered computing $\bullet$ Human computer interaction (HCI)

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Marco Winckler, Philippe Palanque, Jean-Luc Hak, Eric Barboni, Olivier Nicolas, Laurent Goncalves. 2022-05-03. Engineering Annotations: A Generic Framework For Gluing Design Artefacts in Models of Interactive Systems. https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.01333

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Are explainable AI (XAI) evaluation strategies aligned? Comparing subjective, objective, and mathematical evaluation measures using saliency maps

The evaluation of explainable AI (XAI) approaches often relies on three families of methods: subjective measures (e.g., questionnaires on trust or satisfaction), objective measures (e.g., task performance metrics), and mathematical metrics (e.g., for faithfulness). Yet, it remains unclear how these families align or diverge in practice. In a{preregistered} between-subjects study (N=166), we use three established saliency map techniques (LIME, Grad-CAM, Guided Backpropagation) as a testbed to examine this issue. We find that each family of methods leads to different conclusions: participants reported no differences in trust or satisfaction, Grad-CAM improved user performance, while mathematical metrics favored Guided Backpropagation. At the same time, mathematical metrics were only partially related to user performance, and these relationships were sometimes counterintuitive. Our findings highlight the methodological importance of comparing subjective, objective, and mathematical approaches when evaluating XAI, illustrating both tensions and aspects that are aligned. We discuss implications for XAI evaluation frameworks.

cs.HC

Mind Your Ps and Qs: Positive Moderation Practice in the Positive Queue

Online communities rely on volunteer moderators to maintain order. Despite their key role, moderators are given a toolbox of punishments and far less support for encouraging contributions they want to see more of. We introduce the Positive Queue as a positive counterpart to Reddit's modqueue: a dedicated space for moderators to discover contributions and behaviors they want to encourage and positively reinforce. With five moderators, four with 6-14 years of experience, we use the Positive Queue to examine how moderators operationalize positive reinforcement. Moderators combined predicted community reception, observed engagement, and their own judgment; used prediction-engagement mismatches to identify overlooked content; and repurposed positive features for punitive and retrospective work. These findings surface tensions around labor, attribution, and community fit. We contribute the Positive Queue as a working system and conceptualize positive moderation as recognition infrastructure that shapes what moderators notice, whose judgment becomes visible, and how recognition reaches contributors.

cs.HC

PILOT: Control Surfaces for Authoring Social Media Feeds

Personalized social media feeds infer preferences from behavior, leaving people little direct control over what they see. Existing controls range from post-level reactions to rules and natural language, but little is known about how people use them together or how added expressiveness changes effort. We built PILOT, a Bluesky feed-authoring system that turns in-feed actions into explicit preferences, deterministic ranking, and inspectable outcomes. A study with seven participants informed an expanded implementation, which we organized into three nested control surfaces that ten participants compared within subjects. Participants assigned controls to distinct jobs: broad controls set direction, in-post actions refined results, and filters removed content. Richer surfaces did not necessarily feel more effortful, and participants' experiences depended more on whether they could verify and repair outcomes. Our findings show that usable feed control requires not simply more controls, but orchestration across mechanisms that support expression, inspection, repair, and episodic use.

cs.HC